Subject: Re: [bisected] pty performance problem
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: swan.r.l@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20091122122942.644006fb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
References: <20091121222319.GA3905@swanrl.gmail.com>
	 <20091121232320.3262636c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20091122002748.GA6605@swanrl.gmail.com>
	 <20091122122942.644006fb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:41:59 +0100
Message-Id: <1258893719.14325.58.camel@marge.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 884
Lines: 21

On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 12:29 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > While I could rewrite the communications to optionally use pipes, or
> > get the client to reprocess a log file locally, what I have does seem
> > a reasonable use of ptys.
> 
> Wouldn't argue with that. The tty layer queues the characters which then
> get processed but at the moment get processed after the next timer tick
> not when the CPU is idle. That wants changing and it strikes me as utterly
> dumb in general to be deferring work when the CPU is idle.

*blink*, up to 10 ms thumb twiddling session?

I wouldn't mind having a copy of the stripped down test proggy.

	-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/